List of ISO, IEC, SAE, and UL standards related to electric vehicle safety performance.

Joint proposal supported by Canada, the EU, OICA, and the USA.

Automaker organization comments on the NHTSA views (see document EVSTF-06-07), including differences in the application of the procedures under self-certification and type-approval regimes.

Proposed revisions to the text concerning safety provisions for electrified heavy-duty vehicles.

Presentation of OICA views on the NHTSA, JRC, and Japan input regarding the state-of-charge of the batteries (or other energy storage systems) under electric vehicle safety testing.

OICA proposals for test procedures for thermal propagation.

OICA proposals for battery management system testing.

OICA argument for delaying the establishment of water testing until the “phase 2” development of the electric vehicle safety test cycle.

OICA draft text especially relating to discussions on REESS venting (minor and major) and assessment of risks to vehicle occupants.

OICA comments, especially relating to control over fire temperatures during testing.

Proposal to add an LPG test method.

Presentation of OICA proposals for changes to the working draft heavy vehicles section of the electric vehicle safety GTR.

OICA argument for excluding water protection testing from the initial electric vehicle safety GTR. Broadly, OICA believes the issue needs more consideration before determining the appropriate response, especially given the absence of any reported accidents related to the potential concern and the variety of strategies available to prevent electric shocks.

Comparison of provisions in the draft proposals prepared by China and by OICA and in UN R100 on battery electric vehicle safety.

Draft OICA “framing document” intended to clarify the consensus concerning the scope, purpose, and objectives of the BMS functionality work, as of 10 June 2016 (version 2).

OICA comments on the status of the discussions and proposed test procedure as of 13 June 2016.

OICA presentation on the proposed thermal propagation initiation methods (nail, heat, and overcharge) and concerns over the objectivity of the testing in terms of producing quantitative, comparable outcomes. OICA argues that the three proposed initiation methods are not equivalent and that overcharge should be removed. In addition, OICA could like to see a thermal runaway definition applicable to cathode or anode configurations and proposes changing the definition (detection criteria) of thermal runaway to temperature-increase rates of greater than 1.25°C/sec (75°C/min) or lower.

Proposal to refine the scope by replacing the phrase “can travel” by “can be propelled”. The use of “travel” in the scope can be interpreted to include vehicles using using electrical systems for purposes other than propulsion (e.g., energy recuperation) that fall outside the test conditions of UN R138. The proposal further amends:

1. Paragraph 2.7. to make clear the “pause function” refers to systems that allow the driver to deactivate an AVAS system;
2. Paragraph 6.2.6.: The vehicle operator shall not deactivate AVAS while driving. However, the manufacturer shall be enabled to activate or deactivate AVAS, including automatically, by regional coding according to legal provisions of various markets.
3. Paragraph 11.: the transitional provisions were added according to the rules of WP.29 for new series of amendments. Paragraph 11.6. has been added to maintain approvals that also comply with the new series of amendments, as is the case for vehicles that do not have a pause function according to the newly suggested paragraph 6.2.6.
4. Annex 1, Addendum to the communication form No …, Technical Information: technical information regarding “Pause switch (yes/no)” will be no longer necessary.

Proposal to clarify the regulation with regard to propulsion of the vehicle (replace the term “travel”), definition of the “pause function” (including taking into account the Japanese proposal to prohibit the use of a pause function), and provisions for deactivating AVAS coding in accordance with local market requirements and under conditions outside the scope of the regulation.

OICA proposal to amend the German proposal to clarify the requirements with regard to daytime running lamps and direction indicators in order to prevent DRL from masking or otherwise interfering with the visibility of the direction indicator lamps.

Revised proposal to clarify the requirements with regard to daytime running lamps and direction indicators in order to prevent DRL from masking or otherwise interfering with the visibility of the direction indicator lamps.

Document GRE/2016/10 proposed to refine the transitional provisions of UN R48 pursuant to possibilities for the application of the regulation within the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval system. Since IWVTA allows for approvals to earlier versions of current regulations, the possibility exists where optional installation of advanced equipment could entail mandatory compliance with the latest version of UN R48. However, UN R48 imposes broad requirements such that efforts to add certain safety equipment are hindered by concerns over compliance with a broad range of requirements under the latest version of UN R48 that raises the consumer price to prohibitive levels. Therefore, OICA supports the solution proposed by GTB (document GRE/2016/10).

Proposal to clarify that only external status indicators as referenced in UN R97 and R116 are addressed under the proposal to define such external indicators and introduce performance specifications under UN R48 for Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS), Alarm Systems (AS) and immobilizers (draft Supplement 18 to the 04 series, Supplement 11 to the 05 series and Supplement 9 to the 06 series of amendments to UN R48).

Proposal to amend Regulation No. 48 following the outcome of the 167th session of the World Forum where amendments to Regulations Nos. 97 and 116 on the status indicators for Vehicle Alarm System (VAS), Alarm System (AS) and immobilizer were adopted (WP.29/2015/87 and WP.29/2015/91). The proposal aims at defining and specifying the operation of the external status indicator for VAS, AS and the immobilizer.

Correction of the proposal to amend Regulation No. 48 following the outcome of the 167th session of the World Forum where amendments to Regulations Nos. 97 and 116 on the status indicators for Vehicle Alarm System (VAS), Alarm System (AS) and immobilizer were adopted (WP.29/2015/87 and WP.29/2015/91). The proposal aims at defining and specifying the operation of the external status indicator for VAS, AS and the immobilizer.

Proposal to clarify Annex 10, paragraph 11 with respect to the “formal documentation package” according to paragraph 5.1.4.2. and the “extended documentation package” described in paragraph 5.1.4.3.

Proposal to clarify that no more than four malfunction-indicator failures shall be simulated for type approval.

Proposal for editorial corrections and improvements identified since the last WLTP informal group session (WLTP-12 in Tokyo). OICA has consolidated comments on behalf of a number of participants to assist the WLTP Drafting Coordinator.

Consolidated version of the proposed GTR No. 15 amendment incorporating the corrections and improvements presented in document GRPE-72-09. These editorial corrections and improvements were identified since the last WLTP informal group session (WLTP-12 in Tokyo). OICA has consolidated comments of a number of participants on their behalf to assist the WLTP Drafting Coordinator.

Proposal to add the condition “when the engine is equipped with the appropriate sensors” with regard to OBD fuel injection monitoring, aligning the text with that used in GTR No. 5.

Proposal to adapt the 06 and 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 83 to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) warning and inducement systems to current vehicles, emissions requirements and reagent infrastructure. In light of further vehicle weight reduction for CO2 optimization and the resultant vehicle packaging challenges, diesel cars will likely have smaller AdBlue® reagent tanks. For passenger cars, the warning indicator to refill AdBlue® has to be activated at 2,400 km of remaining reagent range which could result in very frequent refills of smaller reagent tanks. This proposal would allow for reagent refill inducement warnings as a percentage of tank capacity. For heavy-duty vehicles, the warning has to be activated at least at a reagent level of 10 per cent of total reagent tank volume. The inducement system has to be activated at least at 2.5 per cent of reagent level.

Proposal to introduce provisions to align UN R49 with recently introduced stage D EU legislation in order enable manufacturers to continue to utilize the provisions in paragraph 4 of Annex 9A to approve light commercial vehicles with a light duty OBD architecture under this regulation. This proposal incorporates all of the provisions of the latest amendment to EU legislation. As stage D is unrelated to OBD, the proposal is to make stage C and all subsequent stages equivalent to EOBD 6-2.

Proposal, consolidating document GRRF-82-08 with the proposed test procedures, revising “option 4” as presented in the proposal introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions under UN R79 (document GRRF/2016/45). Option 4 proposes to amend the definition of corrective steering functions and to include technical requirements for LKAS as an ASCF of Category B1. The proposal includes:

• Clarification of Corrective steering function (CSF) incl. defining of new requirements;
• Establishment of new categories for automatically commanded steering function (ACSF): Categories A, B1, B2, C, D and E;
• Wording for requirements of Category A (incl. remote parking RCP), and Category B1.

During its 8th meeting (Stockholm), the ACSF informal group decided that all functions to “assist the avoidance of a collision” would be excluded from the definition of “Corrective Steering Function”. ACSF decided to establish a new definition for “Emergency Steering Functions (ESF)” with specific requirements. The intention was to draft this definition during a second phase effort through which requirements for ACSF categories beyond B1 will be established. In order to enable the approval of ESF systems critical to road safety, OICA has prepared this proposal for an ESF definition and simple requirements based upon provisions for Complex Electronics (CEL) in Annex 6. A footnote has also been added to define the specific conditions for the approval of these systems, until uniform provisions are defined by the ACSF informal group.

In order to enhance the safety of B1 corrective steering functions (by reducing the probability of driver over-reliance and misunderstanding of system limitations), OICA proposes a minimum value of 0.8 m/s² for maximum lateral acceleration in place of the draft 1 m/s² for the speed range between 100-130 km/h for M1 and N1 vehicles. OICA believes that this would ensure that a system is capable under all conditions of generating the required minimum acceleration.